Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Indeed, my walking-stick for hiking is designed to be that (including a compass on the top knob) as well as a monopod for my rather expensive DSLR and lens (the knob comes off to reveal a standard screw mount). The point being that I'm rarely out hiking without my camera, specifically to photograph wildlife. And I've seen and photographed (and been chased by) lots of wildlife. It's like UFO photos. They're always blurry, indistinct, and require lots of interpretation, which leads to the obvious conclusion that photos of mysterious phenomena have to be the ones that are too fuzzy to be defensibly identifiable as anything else. That's the only way it works. You have to be able to say, "Well, the evidence is too nebulous to prove it's a prosaic this-or-that, so it opens the door to my pet mystery."

As to the lawsuit, I just don't see a lot of merit. The state's obligation to warn people of dangerous wildlife would seem necessarily in proportion to the evidence of actual danger. Wildlife per se is not dangerous to humans; it varies greatly by species and circumstance. Yes, there are a few eyewitness-only accounts and photographs purporting to be this allegedly dangerous creature Bigfoot, but that's not evidence that's congruent in amount and confidence with the evidence establishing the existence and threat of other animals for which warnings seem appropriate. Given that any warning of danger -- valid or not -- has a chilling effect on free enjoyment of open public spaces, the responsible agency must have some discretion over what warnings to give. And where such discretion exists, it must be free to evaluate the threat based on evidence. There is a general obligation not to alarm people unnecessarily, whether it's of incoming missiles or big hairy mythical beasts. We require those who wield power under color of government to be able to articulate a rational basis for their actions and to exercise ordinary good judgment.

More importantly, it's unclear to me to what extent the state has an obligation to act in an advisory role. We recognize the obligation to conserve wild areas, but that's generally to conserve them from the effects of people, and so the state regulates people's activity so as to protect the wildlife, not the other way around. Paradoxically the state assumes an obligation to protect humans from dangerous wildlife that strays into developed areas. But it seems the state's obligation to protect people when they stray into wildlife areas is simply to advise them that a hazard is known to exist and thereafter to leave it up to people to behave in a way that to them seems appropriate. The state tells people that bears have been observed in some area, and you venture into that area at your own risk. I just fail to see how any of the Bigfoot evidence, taken in whole, rises to a level of scientific consensus that would compel a point of public policy.

"Ackley’s biggest concern is that the government, by not acknowledging Bigfoot’s existence, could be endangering the public.
'People have to be warned about these things. They are big,' Ackley said. 'We’re totally vulnerable to these things.'”

Interesting. NAWAC in Oklahoma claims nightly rock assaults by giant apes, in an area that sports nearby off-road recreation and hunting and hiking trails, yet they haven't pressed upon the local authorities the dangerous conditions they have encountered there. What gives?

Dragons are big, and all the stories told about them indicate that humans are vulnerable to them. In my mind there's a big difference between stories told about something and observed, evidenced behavior of the thing itself. It doesn't matter what everyone "knows" or believes about dragons; it's not evidence of a threat unless the threat materializes in something other than the imagination.

As I understand the law, a court would require a showing that the claimed hazard is actual or inevitable, not merely that it could conceivably occur. But I think that's the standard of proof required for a more instrumental order. If all they want is declarative relief in the form of acknowledging the existence of Bigfoot, I'm not sure what standard of proof should apply. In any case I don't think a court would consider that a justiciable question; it's more a scientific question, the kind that the law traditionally does not touch.

"The state denies the existence of Bigfoot," seems to want to reverse the burden of proof. That the state takes no steps presently to warn of a threat whose existence is deeply in question seems to fall far short of a denial. I think of denial as an affirmative step. It's not as if the state is posting signs that say "There is no such thing as Bigfoot." It seems the plaintiffs are operating under a belief that controversy or ambiguity over whatever evidence there is should have previously been resolved in their favor by the state. Ballsy, but not -- in my unlearned opinion -- a good legal strategy.

When I dabbled in real estate I attended a seminar where they told us that under New York law a seller has to disclose to potential buyers whether a house is haunted. This would seem to indicate that the state of New York acknowledges the existence of ghosts. Well, no. Allegations of haunting, according to New York, have to be considered in the negotiations over the value of the property. That might be as practical a consideration as evaluating the prospect for quiet enjoyment if random ghost hunters who know of the stories are going to bang on your door.

But I can see this perhaps going in that direction. California wouldn't necessarily have to acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot in a way that others could style as having been proven in court. All California would have to say is something like, "This area has been associated with claimed sightings of Bigfoot." It acknowledges the only facts that could conceivably be proven to a legal standard, and is essentially neutral as to whether an actual threat exists.

I wandered over to check BFRO's sightings by region page, San Bernardino County has had 11 sightings total, spread out from 1950 to 2014. Not exactly a Bigfoot hotbed.

It is black bear central though, and the fact that this lady's bigfoot was high up in a tree screams black bear to me.

More to the point, as an avid hiker, hiking at dust requires one be alert for Mountain Lions and Bears who have just woken up, and are looking for breakfast. Her cell phone video shows it was dusk, low-light conditions, where shadows deepen, and identification of even common animal life is problematic.

California's defense should be easy, the State Park's Department is in the biology business, not the mythology business. If you ever ask a Ranger about bigfoot, or in my case ghosts, they will politely tell you there's no evidence. In some cases they might point you to the park gift shop (if there is one) where you can find books by local authors filled with all kinds of tales that are not endorsed by the Park System.

The dispatcher who took her call did the right thing. It was a bear, and that's what needs to be reported to Rangers out on patrol. Now if they get out there and find a bigfoot then everyone wins, but the risk is the dispatcher, a state employee, feeding someone's delusion that could lead to something far worse, and definitely actionable in a civil court.

The video is too underexposed to see much other than there is a large black animal of some kind in the tree. The position of one arm looks odd for a bear, but, given that black bears are real and sasquatch are not, i'm going to go with bear.

Yeah, that sort of jumped out at me, too. When you're just ********ting, sometimes that sort of detail escapes your notice.

She estimated her bearsquatch to be 800 lbs, and if you look at the video, you'll see estimating weights is another concept she's unclear on.

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

I think I agree with her statement, “That was no bear!” I don’t think there was anything at all.

In the videos in that article, they focus in and highlight a dark shape up in the tree branches. That puts the Sasquatch up in the tree, just like she claims. Except that wasn’t what her daughter was actually filming. Additional footage is here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

While the footage does contain the dark shape that is highlighted, her daughter is focusing the camera lower down near the right or left of the tree, not up in the branches. You can still see the dark shape in the branches near the top edge of the frame, but that is not what her daughter (who spotted the Sasquatch) is pointing the camera at.

She says, "I see it. Is it by the tree?" So she sees it, but isn’t sure where it is. The video breaks and then she is asking "…and a shoulder?" She still isn’t sure what she is looking at. The she asks, “Did it move?” She still isn’t sure what she is looking at. So she sees something that is maybe “by” the tree that maybe has a shoulder and maybe moved. But she now claims she saw an 800 pound “orangutan color” Sasquatch with “black solid eyes” up in the tree (not “by the tree”). And the proof is some blurry dark shape in the tree branches that the daughter filming wasn’t even pointing the camera at and is barely even in frame…I guess.

I don’t see any animal. I don’t see anything move at all.

__________________Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

Maybe she is saying one Bigfoot in the tree and two more near the tree. I haven't watched the video yet.

Nope. One Bigfoot "by the tree" (later changed to "in the tree") and after that her daughter saw two more "over there" (pointing in another direction away from the tree).

__________________Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

Maybe she is saying one Bigfoot in the tree and two more near the tree. I haven't watched the video yet.

Yes, she seems stable, the Bigfoots are also getting more aggressive and banging on her house more frequently.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

It's pretty hilarious. Ignore the analysis by Gizmodo; it really adds nothing. The prayed relief includes a writ of mandamus, which would be an appropriate remedy if the relevant causes of action are proved. But the complaint also includes (para. 36) a prayer for declarative judgment that "Respondents infringed the constitutional rights of Petitioner as it relates to her concerns regarding Sasquatch."

Er, what?

The complaint states no cause of action that would be remedied thereby. That is, it does not spell out which of Ackley's "constitutional rights" have been infringed, or how. Basically, if you read between the lines of the rest of the complaint, it insinuates that Ackley has a constitutional right to have her research taken seriously and believed, and that it's somehow the State of California's fault that it isn't, and that she's allegedly a laughingstock.

There was some commentary about people seeing other Bigfoot shadows in the PGF, and also perhaps Darkwing or Driveroperator posted some of their dubious photos.

We posted links to the tree monkey Bigfoot a few years ago.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Creekfreak's looked like a standard-issue off-the-shelf gorilla sitting in high weeds a few feet in front of a low-hovering helicopter. It was an interesting illusion caused by vegetation and shadows, but it wasn't a bigfoot.

If CA does deny its existence, that's exactly one thing I can applaud CA for doing for as long as I can remember. Something tells me they haven't even done that though.

The counties in the Northwest part of the state, which make a lot of money through Bigfoot connected Tourism, would prevent that from happening.
Think a Bigfoot version of the Alien Tourist crap you see in Roswell,New Mexico and you pretty much have it.

__________________Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

It's pretty hilarious. Ignore the analysis by Gizmodo; it really adds nothing. The prayed relief includes a writ of mandamus, which would be an appropriate remedy if the relevant causes of action are proved. But the complaint also includes (para. 36) a prayer for declarative judgment that "Respondents infringed the constitutional rights of Petitioner as it relates to her concerns regarding Sasquatch."

Er, what?

The complaint states no cause of action that would be remedied thereby. That is, it does not spell out which of Ackley's "constitutional rights" have been infringed, or how. Basically, if you read between the lines of the rest of the complaint, it insinuates that Ackley has a constitutional right to have her research taken seriously and believed, and that it's somehow the State of California's fault that it isn't, and that she's allegedly a laughingstock.

This should be entertaining.

Maybe the constitutional right that was violated was freedom of religion, as belief in bigfoot seems to be as lacking in evidence as most religious beliefs. However, I don't believe there is any case law requiring government officials to pretend they share a citizens un-evidenced religious beliefs.

I'm pretty sure she's going to need something more than badly underexposed video and "I know what I saw" to convince a court to do anything she wants them to do.

"They're on our property. They knock on our walls. They look through our windows," Ackley said. "It's more and more and more."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I may be wrong about this but I think MK Davis believes Patty was caught in a Bigfoot massacre and there are other bigfoots hiding in the woods. He also believes Patty was shot in the thigh at the end of the film.

I may be wrong about this but I think MK Davis believes Patty was caught in a Bigfoot massacre and there are other bigfoots hiding in the woods. He also believes Patty was shot in the thigh at the end of the film.

"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." GM

Ackley said the sasquatch was perched in a tree, about 30 feet above the ground. She said there were two other sasquatches nearby.

The Sasquatch was perched up in the tree about 30 feet. The video in the article in post #48 shows her standing by the tree. About 30 feet up is where the big branch bends away from the trunk. That’s where the dark shape is that those videos focus in on. That’s the Bigfoot.

Now, this is creepy. I know you probably aren’t going to believe me. But I have video proof of this…

If you watch the video I posted, she is standing about where she was in the original video from over a year ago. The camera is in about the same position. If you look at about 30 feet up the tree where that dark shape was, what do you see? It’s the same dark shape! The Bigfoot is still there! Run! Run! Woop! Run!

__________________Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

The counties in the Northwest part of the state, which make a lot of money through Bigfoot connected Tourism, would prevent that from happening.
Think a Bigfoot version of the Alien Tourist crap you see in Roswell,New Mexico and you pretty much have it.

I somehow doubt that an official denial from the state government would put much of a dent in Bigfoot tourism.

__________________Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

I somehow doubt that an official denial from the state government would put much of a dent in Bigfoot tourism.

And I doubt it would have the deleterious effect on Bigfoot pseudoscience that its practitioners say they fear. If the notion of Bigfoot were to be normalized, they would sink into relative obscurity along with the rest of zoology. Ever see those big marine isopods? Imagine a giant pill bug the size of a shoe box. Striking appearance. But how many marine biologists can you name off the top of your head who study the Bathynomus genus? It's not a profession or field of study that generally leads to celebrity. The prospect of making Bigfoot part of Real Science is that those who study it would soon become Real Scientists and thus properly sink into the obscurity in which nearly all Real Scientists work.

One of the tenets of fringe argumentation is that its claimants make a big fuss about wanting to be taken seriously by the mainstream. But out of the other side of their mouths, they revel in the controversy. It's the controversy that makes them relevant and special, and the rejection from the mainstream enlivens the controversy.

The Sasquatch was perched up in the tree about 30 feet. The video in the article in post #48 shows her standing by the tree. About 30 feet up is where the big branch bends away from the trunk. That’s where the dark shape is that those videos focus in on. That’s the Bigfoot.

Now, this is creepy. I know you probably aren’t going to believe me. But I have video proof of this…

If you watch the video I posted, she is standing about where she was in the original video from over a year ago. The camera is in about the same position. If you look at about 30 feet up the tree where that dark shape was, what do you see? It’s the same dark shape! The Bigfoot is still there! Run! Run! Woop! Run!

Since it's been in exactly the same place and same position for a year, it's got to be dead. This is a golden opportunity to get proof positive of the existence of bigfoot. Climb the tree and recover the (no doubt mummified by now) body.

Maybe the constitutional right that was violated was freedom of religion, as belief in bigfoot seems to be as lacking in evidence as most religious beliefs.

That would be as novel a legal theory as any of the ones suggested in the complaint.

As I see it, the petition will probably as a matter of fact due to lack of evidence, and additionally fails as a matter of law on most of its claims. In form of law -- at least as I as as layman understand American law -- the prayer for relief for "infringement of constitutional rights" fails summarily for failing to state a cause of action that would justify that relief. That is, the petition seems ill-formed in that way. Normally -- as I understand the rules -- in order to ask a court for relief you need to state a cause of action that alleges the specific acts done or not done, but also identifies what law was broken. That bit's required in order to explain specifically what's wrong with the acts and thereby why the respondent should be liable for any effects. A cause of action alleging a violation of constitutional rights would have to point to the part of the Constitution that the complained-of acts violated. It's not enough just to allege that someone did something or didn't do something else.

But I don't know if a petition for a writ of mandamus is the same as a civil complaint under California (or anyone's) law. My impression is that if your filing with the court is for a writ of mandamus, then a writ of mandamus is all you should pray for in it and expect to receive from it. But I might be wrong. The filing is labeled as a petition for write of mandate (same thing as mandamus), but is written out as if it were a civil complaint. And I just don't know enough about legal procedure to know if that's how it's supposed to be done.

As far as the writ of mandamus would go, the petition seems reasonably in order. The relevant causes of action lay out elements of the California agency's mandate and directives, and alleges facts that would, if proven, support an order from the court directing the agency to make similar efforts regarding Bigfoot -- along the lines of those mission statements -- as it does for other animals and their habitat. Petitioner alleges that California has an obligation to protect its public lands and wildlife from inappropriate action by humans, and likewise to inform and protect people against the dangers present on those lands. Petitioner alleges facts treating the sensitivity of Bigfoot's environment and the supposed dangerous nature of the purport creature. Since we're not at the stage where we test the evidence, that would seem to be an appropriate pleading at this point.

But the petition goes on to claim Petitioner has been injured. Specifically she claims that California's "denial" of Bigfoot relegates her sincere and dedicated scientific efforts the realm of pseudoscience and the paranormal. I enquote "denial" because it's not clear from the petition to what degree, if any, California has denied the existence and nature of Bigfoot. Denial in this sense would seem to be an affirmative act, and the petition alleges no such affirmation. Simply not acting in a way consistent with a belief that Bigfoot exists does not rise to a high degree of malfeasance. The petition merely alleges that California "knows or should know" that Bigfoot exists. That implies California was obliged to interpret the scientific evidence in the light most favorable to Bigfoot fans.

Back the Petitioner, though. She makes a claim that sounds in defamation, but defamation is not, as I understand it, a constitutional matter. It's a matter of tort, which lives in statute and not in the Constitution. To be sure, she has a right not to be defamed. But a complaint alleging defamation would have to be brought under civil law according to state laws governing defamation, not as a matter of constitutional law. Here too I am not aware of any legal construction that makes someone liable for defamation solely via his inaction. (Negligence, in contrast, is a tort arising from inaction toward an ordinary duty of care, but that's not where we are.) Petitioner desires a reputation as a serious scientist, and alleges that the state's inaction in endorsing her subject of study has somehow injured her by preventing her from attaining that reputation.

Um, okay.

Quote:

However, I don't believe there is any case law requiring government officials to pretend they share a citizens un-evidenced religious beliefs.

Or unevidenced pseudoscientific beliefs. Or any beliefs. The state is often bound to respect beliefs, but not to endorse them. Moreover I fail to see how the state has any obligation to advance the reputation of some individual researcher by giving some sort of imprimatur. It's questionable how much that endorsement would matter anyway. The factors affecting one's reputation in a scientific community don't seem to have much to do with government endorsement.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure she's going to need something more than badly underexposed video and "I know what I saw" to convince a court to do anything she wants them to do.

It reminds me a little of the Truther lawsuits, and -- way back in the 1990s -- a few lawsuits from Apollo deniers. It seems that a number of fringe claimants really are so out of touch with the objective credibility of their claims that they think they have any chance to prevail in court. Either that or they just want the publicity. It's often very amusing to see their reaction when the legal system stops them dead in their tracks.

I gather the people leading this circus plan to present a buttload of their standard evidence. It's reasonable to suppose it will be of the same low and unconvincing quality as we've already seen.

Courts are understandably reluctant to rule on questions that look like declarations of scientific validity. Rulings of law are of a different normative character than conclusions over scientific evidence. The courts don't hold, for example, that the Standard Model is the mandated view of elementary particles to the exclusion of all others. They don't suppress or fail conspicuously to endorse competing claims. Where a question of scientific holding becomes material to a legal question, I've always seen the courts defer to the relevant scientists themselves to see whether a sufficient rigor and consensus exists among them to support justiciability. It may very well come down to the court dismissing the petition on the grounds that it's not a kind of question a court can decide. And even if it doesn't dismiss, the facts are not on the Petitioner's side. All excuses aside, there is no consensus in the academic and professional zoology community that the evidence supports the reality of Bigfoot as a new, real species. Sure, you can have Meldrum talk up a storm on the stand. But at the end of the day, the fact remains that the scientific community of which Meldrum is a part has an opposing consensus. That's the fact that I think would end up weighing most in court.

Generally anyone who acts under color of law has to do so with a rational basis. Where discretion is allowed -- as it is and ought to be in some cases -- it is still subject to rational review, but only if its discretion appears irrational. Discretion among similarly rational alternatives doesn't really come under judicial scrutiny, in my experience. Since the California agency has the power to enjoin behavior, it could conceivably be forced to post signs warning people to keep out of suspected Bigfoot habitat, and to cite and fine them for violations. That's an infringement upon people's right to access public lands, and it would have to have a rational basis to hold up under scrutiny. Since the agency would be liable for the effects of such infringements, it has discretion in how to make and enforce those rules. It also has discretion in how best to manage the resources that have been appropriated for it. Petitioner wants the state to aid in her study of Bigfoot, an enterprise that would compete with all other activities consistent with the agency's mission. The agency has discretion in determining the most likely beneficial outcome from its stewardship of resources, and it would be somewhat a violation of separation of powers for a court to mandate that an agency of the executive exercise its discretion in a particular way.

In a hypothetical world where Bigfoot does exist you could have "celebrity" scientists who study them and are household names. That was the situation with Jane Goodall and chimpanzees.

That's a good point. We do have celebrity scientists, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's not the norm, though. How many other chimpanzee researchers can you name? I don't think I'm amiss in saying that despite a few exceptions, most mainstream scientists remain obscure, and practicing science in the normal way does not usually lead to general celebrity.

But I should amend my argument to account better for the exceptions. What appeals to fringe claimants is the David v. Goliath pattern. It's the prospect of individual crusaders against powerful mainstream interests. Jade Goodall is notable not because she fought Goliath and won, but for other reasons. She's very good at what she does, and made legitimate important findings. So in a hypothetical world where Bigfoot exists -- or in a future this-world where convincing evidence of Bigfoot may finally emerge -- you won't necessarily have room at the top for all the Bigfoot researchers who want the spotlight. And more importantly, they won't be as interested in that kind of spotlight. It's not necessarily that they want to be noted; they want to be noted for doing a specific thing -- i.e., standing up to the Man.

It will work out great for the Bigfooters if the court throws out the lawsuit without a trial. They can say that it is confirmation of a government conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of the existence of Bigfoot.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

I’m not real clear on the technical details of a writ of mandate either. There are two types of mandate: administrative and ordinary (also called traditional). An administrative mandate is quasi-judicial. This occurs when a government agency is required to hold a hearing, review evidence, and issue a subjective decision. An ordinary mandate is quasi-legislative. This type of mandate concerns a government agency’s rules, policies, and procedures established for carries out its legal duties.

This petition is for an ordinary mandate. That means even if California were legally required to acknowledge the existence of any species, the court would not make a determination of whether Bigfoot exists or order California to acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot. That would be an administrative decision. Instead, the court would only review the policies and procedures used by California to determine the existence of a species and whether those procedures were adequate and were being carried out. It would then be up to California to follow those procedures in determining whether or not to acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot. But that’s only if such a law existed.

The ordinary mandate is authorized under CCP 1085:

Quote:

A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.

There is little evidence that failure to investigate diseases and problems related to Bigfoot has personally injured the Petitioner. There is no specific right cited that she has been denied. “There be a clear, present, ministerial duty upon the part of the respondent and a correlative clear, present, and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty.” (Sego v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 1997). “…unless this right is made to appear the application should be denied.” (Potter v. City Council of Port Hueneme, 1951).

That means there has to be a specific law that California is compelled to perform. Mission statements on websites are not specific laws. Therefore, those causes of action are out. That leaves us with the one specific law cited:

Quote:

According to Fish & Wildlife Code Section 1008, the CDFW “shall investigate all diseases of, and problems relating to, birds, mammals, or fish, and establish and maintain laboratories to assist in such investigation.”

There are obviously some problems here. That specific law makes no mention of acknowledging any species. That’s pretty much the end of that. Even if those were somehow construed as being related, the relief requested seems to be unavailing. The mere acknowledgement of a species does not itself compel CDFW to investigate Bigfoot. CDFW can’t do laboratory studies without a specimen. What are the diseases of Bigfoot? Note that “problems” here likely does not mean public safety. CDFW primarily regulates hunting and fishing. It does not protect the public from wildlife (other than its enforcement of laws regarding killing of animals, which is sometimes permitted of non-game animals causing or threatening to cause injury to persons or property).

Petitioner claims injury and denial of rights not related to the cause of action and requests relief that Respondent is not legally required to perform and which the court could not grant anyway under an ordinary mandate. The court will give the petition the boot. It won’t get past arguing the legal validity of the petition.

__________________Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

According to Fish & Wildlife Code Section 1008, the CDFW “shall investigate all diseases of, and problems relating to, birds, mammals, or fish, and establish and maintain laboratories to assist in such investigation.”

We wouldn't know if Bigfoot is a bird or a mammal or a fish or even something else like a reptile. We have no specimen and no other evidence can be authenticated.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.